babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Ford Desecration Pt IV - the march to Detroit continues

Comments

Re: the talk about KWT - I don't think Kristyn's going anywhere other than councillor for a long, long time. She's made herself very visible on a number of issues, including (but not only) Pride, and if/when she reoffers in 2014, it won't even be close. She'll be posting Kyle Rae-like majorities, and it would take dynamite to lever her out. She might be willing to hunker down in her ward for a few terms, build up her reputation, and so forth, before she ventures on to other political office. She has a sure thing in Ward 27. Why risk it?

"If every argument always boils down to the most vulnerable - if every single argument, because everything you can do, the argument goes down to the most vulnerable - then we might as well not do absolutely anything," Del Grande said after a budget committee meeting.

The city already charges for indoor swimming.

.....

The provincial government would have to amend the Public Libraries Act before Toronto could impose fees on circulating materials. The library board, not council, would make the final decision.

Sadly, there are already user fees in lots of places in Canada. I'm glad people in Toronto think it's beyond the pale (as it should be), but some library users already have to pay to borrow DVDs or request books, to go to swimming pools ,etc.

Ford, who initially said he welcomed an audit because he has “nothing to hide,” is appealing the decision.
In documents filed Friday, his lawyers asked the court to treat the residents’ compliance audit request as an entirely new case rather than dealing with the matter as a regular appeal. In an appeal, Ford’s lawyers would have to convince the court that the compliance audit committee had made an error.

For Councillor Adam Vaughan, a former police board member, there is a sensitive balancing act between personal privacy and possible conflicts.
“What’s changed since the last time events made the headlines is that he has a designate on the police service board and he is involved directly with negotiations around the budget . . . the mayor can’t handle this the same way he handled it before.
“He has a higher burden of responsibility here. If he’s involved with the police, either with calling them or having them called against him. . . he’s got to be much more clear how he’s exercising this authority and whether or not there is any potential conflict.”
That probably would mean making a public declaration about what’s going on, he said.
“That being said, clearly he is dealing with some significant private issues. . . he needs the time and the space to deal with that.”

TTC chair Karen Stinz experiences a sudden burst of rationality. It's also the only way to save the misguided Sheppard subway proposal which is not - surprise! - going to be built for free by the private sector.

“I consider him a left-wing NDPer. I’m not surprised. It’s just like saying Adam Vaughan or (Gord) Perks or (Janet) Davis or (Paula) Fletcher is not voting with me,” he said. “These people are all two steps left of Joe Stalin. So I’m not discouraged by that and I don’t expect it. They don’t care about the taxpayers. But I know one person who does and that’s me.”

Can't offer too many thoughts until we hear about the details of the deal. Will the parties be able to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s? Is it a deal the members will accept?

The City negotiators definitely played hardball with their "final offer" - threatening to stop remitting dues to the union among other cutbacks to the benefits and working conditions. It was a divisive offer pitting parts of the bargaining unit against each other while making the union itself pay a very high price (that I'm not even sure was "legal").

No, I was referring to the idea that the employer would impose a new 4-year "agreement" which did not include application of the Rand formula at all. I was questioning whether an employer can opt out of dues check-off without the unions permission?

In a strike or lock-out situation, there is an essential services regime. Those employees who are working are still paying dues I think. In my bargaining unit, dues rose to 30% for those who are working uring our two strikes against the Harris Cons. I don't know the mechanics of it but those dues were remitted by the employer when we were on strike. (The union also paid the employer 100% of the premiums for a bare-bones medical plan in both our strikes if I'm not mistaken but there was no requirement to do so).

47. (1) Except in the construction industry and subject to section 52, where a trade union that is the bargaining agent for employees in a bargaining unit so requests, there shall be included in the collective agreement between the trade union and the employer of the employees a provision requiring the employer to deduct from the wages of each employee in the unit affected by the collective agreement, whether or not the employee is a member of the union, the amount of the regular union dues and to remit the amount to the trade union, forthwith.

That would mean that the Rand formula is a mandatory clause of the collective agreement - so, when the statutory freeze period is over (as it must be before there can be strikes or lockouts), there's no requirement to apply the Rand formula, even for those employees who remain at work.

Unless I'm wrong. But this has happened to one of our units before, under a different jurisdiction with a similar provision to Section 47(1).

When has the public ever been largely on the side of the civic workers?

Generally speaking, support for unionized workers declines as fewer people enjoy the benefits of union membership. I'm referring specifically to CUPE's militant stance during the last round of contract negotiations, when they were dealing with Miller, who negotiated in good faith.

The impression we have (talking about this in a bar with some friends), without knowing the details of the deal as yet, is that a deal was struck because Ford is willing to say "Fuck you!" to the workers. While a protracted strike was possible last time because Miller would put up with it, and continued to negotiate as garbage piled up in parks. not going to the province to get back to work legislation passed, for instance.

The impression we have (talking about this in a bar with some friends), without knowing the details of the deal as yet, is that a deal was struck because Ford is willing to say "Fuck you!" to the workers. While a protracted strike was possible last time because Miller would put up with it, and continued to negotiate as garbage piled up in parks. not going to the province to get back to work legislation passed, for instance.

The impression we have (talking about this in a bar with some friends), without knowing the details of the deal as yet, is that a deal was struck because Ford is willing to say "Fuck you!" to the workers. While a protracted strike was possible last time because Miller would put up with it, and continued to negotiate as garbage piled up in parks. not going to the province to get back to work legislation passed, for instance.

Now you've got me wondering and re-reading Sineed's post. I could have sworn she was praising Miller by saying he negotiated in good faith, and was willing to pay the heavy price of free collective bargaining. But maybe I'll let her comment herself rather than continuing with my Talmudic exegesis...